REW and Umik-1 - questions

[Holmz]

...
...It would be impossible to have a house curve designed for one human, we are too different.
...

Are there examples of how much it changes?

i could picture people generally being absorbers, but I suppose some hard person could reflect?

[Captain Buff]

Honestly, I'd rather measure and tune with my body in the drivers seat. Not only is it easier, but I really don't tune to a house curve anymore anyway. I may use one to do my very first EQ session to get in the ballpark, then I adjust to what I want and forget the curve - and I'd want to set the response with my body where it's normally going to be.

But honestly, I highly doubt it makes that much of a difference anyway - especially if you're not entering competitions. After all, you're tune doesn't take into account all of the road noise, car-generated noise, wind noise, "ambient" noise, etc - so unless you just sit and listen to your car without it running or actually driving it, it's not going to match the house curve anymore anyway. Besides, I haven't found a "pre-defined" house curve that I like anyway - at all.

Just sayin...

Just agreeing....

I seem to ruffle feathers whenever I say anything...FWIW I never intend to annoy anyone. If I have a beef I do it via PM.‘Critical tuning’ and ‘critical listening’...hmmm...why not sit in the seat and tune it where you will be listening to it?

From my limited knowledge and experience it just wouldn’t make sense to tune a Metallica concert to sound unreal 20m from the stage and then go and stand in the front row. ‘Critically’ I don’t know so much about; but ‘subjectivity’ and ‘relativity’ I do. A house curve is no doubt a good starting point, but as the person listening to it becomes aware of the nuances of their gear and their car and their taste then it becomes thoroughly personal.

Hey - I’m not against anyone’s approach and I’m always interested in learning stuff - but I don’t get this sort of stuff...

That’s just me and who cares I guess...but I thought it might be a reasonable query.

Peace

[Captain Buff]

Are there examples of how much it changes?

i could picture people generally being absorbers, but I suppose some hard person could reflect?

Is the effect of a person being present in the car only going to effect the absorption of reflections? Personally I think there are a lot more factors at play...

I think there is a group here who believe in house curves as a great starting point but after that the end result will be fine tuned as per the listeners preference. That’s how I feel. The other group believe in using house curves...but I don’t get what the ‘absenteeism’ gains and surely that group doesn’t just tune to a curve and then move on to the next system to tune to the same curve...

I do not mean offence to anyone and apologise if any comes across - I am known for being blunt with my words - but regardless I would hope that amicable discussion and interchange of information would happen, that would be really helpful...maybe only to me...sorry!

[Jdunk54nl]

I think all can agree that tone controls (bass, mid, treble) are very important to "Flavoring" the speaker response to your preferences. Even Floyd says tone controls should be used and was sad when most amps stopped supplying them.

We have to remember where these house curves came from. It was A LOT of years and scientific studies (a lot done by Harman International) and double blind tests to subjective speaker responses. They would ask trained listeners (they would take them through a training course on how to listen if they have never been) and untrained listeners and ask them what speakers they liked best. They measured the speakers in an anechoic chamber and in the listening room, both with impulse response (where you get all of the information) and steady state room measurements, so they knew the response of all of them for on axis and off axis.

Based on the speakers that people subjectively liked more, they found a very strong pattern and that is where the house curves came from. But you see how they measured the speakers and designed the house curve without people being there. That is the curve that you are matching, without people. This curve, when matched without a person, is what was found people liked the best when they were then there listening (and influencing the response with their body) to the speakers. This is also a great engineering tool. You can design and build speakers without needing people to be there, you can do so based on measurements. It is actually what Harman does across their lines with cost in mind. This is why the Revel line isn't cheap or the upper end of the JBL line. They measure VERY close to that curve. But this takes a lot of engineering to get this done.

So yes, you may not 100% like the house curve after you have tuned to it (without a body present) and need to use tone controls to flavor it for you (use your head unit for these...they are global eq then and that is what you will want to keep crossover points in phase).

But to say you don't like a house curve and then say you sat in the seat while tuning, while you probably don't like that house curve because you didn't tune to that house curve, you tuned to something else. So in reality, you don't know if you don't like that house curve.

Ultimately though, if you get to a tune that you like, then you've succeeded at this whole goal of audio. Enjoyment. Just don't claim it is "x" house curve.

[Jdunk54nl]

Is the effect of a person being present in the car only going to effect the absorption of reflections? Personally I think there are a lot more factors at play...

I think there is a group here who believe in house curves as a great starting point but after that the end result will be fine tuned as per the listeners preference. That’s how I feel. The other group believe in using house curves...but I don’t get what the ‘absenteeism’ gains and surely that group doesn’t just tune to a curve and then move on to the next system to tune to the same curve...

I do not mean offence to anyone and apologise if any comes across - I am known for being blunt with my words - but regardless I would hope that amicable discussion and interchange of information would happen, that would be really helpful...maybe only to me...sorry!

I found no offense in what you posted. No worries from me

[ckirocz28]

I think all can agree that tone controls (bass, mid, treble) are very important to "Flavoring" the speaker response to your preferences. Even Floyd says tone controls should be used and was sad when most amps stopped supplying them.

We have to remember where these house curves came from. It was A LOT of years and scientific studies (a lot done by Harman International) and double blind tests to subjective speaker responses. They would ask trained listeners (they would take them through a training course on how to listen if they have never been) and untrained listeners and ask them what speakers they liked best. They measured the speakers in an anechoic chamber and in the listening room, both with impulse response (where you get all of the information) and steady state room measurements, so they knew the response of all of them for on axis and off axis.

Based on the speakers that people subjectively liked more, they found a very strong pattern and that is where the house curves came from. But you see how they measured the speakers and designed the house curve without people being there. That is the curve that you are matching, without people. This curve, when matched without a person, is what was found people liked the best when they were then there listening (and influencing the response with their body) to the speakers. This is also a great engineering tool. You can design and build speakers without needing people to be there, you can do so based on measurements. It is actually what Harman does across their lines with cost in mind. This is why the Revel line isn't cheap or the upper end of the JBL line. They measure VERY close to that curve. But this takes a lot of engineering to get this done.

So yes, you may not 100% like the house curve after you have tuned to it (without a body present) and need to use tone controls to flavor it for you (use your head unit for these...they are global eq then and that is what you will want to keep crossover points in phase).

But to say you don't like a house curve and then say you sat in the seat while tuning, while you probably don't like that house curve because you didn't tune to that house curve, you tuned to something else. So in reality, you don't know if you don't like that house curve.

Ultimately though, if you get to a tune that you like, then you've succeeded at this whole goal of audio. Enjoyment. Just don't claim it is "x" house curve.

So, they set up a mic and stand in the listening position (in the chair, behind the chair protruding over it, or no chair at all?), then remove said measurement equipment and replace it with a person in a chair. Didn't they change the contents of the environment thus invalidating the tune? I'm being jokingly sarcastic here, but feel free to answer/comment anyway.

[Jdunk54nl]

So, they set up a mic and stand in the listening position (in the chair, behind the chair protruding over it, or no chair at all?), then remove said measurement equipment and replace it with a person in a chair. Didn't they change the contents of the environment thus invalidating the tune? I'm being jokingly sarcastic here, but feel free to answer/comment anyway.

My previous post kind of gets into this. But If you want more answers to all of these questions on how they did it, look up Floyd Toole’s research or buy his book and read it.

most of his book is fairly easy to understand, there are parts you may need to re-read to fully grasp it (well maybe the whole book a few times..I’ve read sections a few times now and learn more each time), but it really isn’t a super complex read.

[ckirocz28]

My previous post kind of gets into this. But If you want more answers to all of these questions on how they did it, look up Floyd Toole’s research or buy his book and read it.

most of his book is fairly easy to understand, there are parts you may need to re-read to fully grasp it (well maybe the whole book a few times..I’ve read sections a few times now and learn more each time), but it really isn’t a super complex read.

Technical books are usually like that, unless your field of expertise is in that particular topic.
Another jokingly sarcastic idea. Wouldn't it have been better to use a ballistic gelatin model of the actual listeners, dressed in the exact same clothes, with a microphone embedded in each ear to do this house curve research properly?

[Jdunk54nl]

Technical books are usually like that, unless your field of expertise is in that particular topic.
Another jokingly sarcastic idea. Wouldn't it have been better to use a ballistic gelatin model of the actual listeners, dressed in the exact same clothes, with a microphone embedded in each ear to do this house curve research properly?

Here is some of Floyd about this
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...nd-more.10950/

this is a good read too from Floyd: https://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20201212/17839.pdf

Also, nearly every home theatre calibration software tells you to place the mic and leave the room.

[erinh]

I do not mean any offence; and I know that I am likely wrong and will get this explained to me...

However the last two paragraphs and the underlined parts make ‘theoretically’ no tangible sense. What good are house curves (or any target curve) if it doesn’t take into account the presence of a HUGE variable that WILL affect the sound response? In this case an occupant?

If the target curves are not designed with a human body in mind...then they are wrong and not suitable for purpose...?

Please let me know where I am wrong, cheers ��

I discuss this topic in a video here: